TSE, you frequently use language that would get the rest of us banned from PB. What about the time you posted Alan Duncan's summary of Boris Johnson?
That was a news report, not my words.
That said all those comments about Mark Reckless were my own words, and I toned that down for PB, in person, and particularly at the Tory conference in 2014 the adjectives I used to describe Mark Reckless made me sound like a Squaddie with Tourette's syndrome.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Is it stupid? It’s what they want, so why not?
Had Remain actually legitimately won, rather than us remaining because politicians won’t let us leave despite leave winning, it surely would have been acceptable for UKIP to have a policy of leaving if they won a majority.
UKIP having a policy of leaving if they won a Parliamentary majority makes a lot more sense than Cameron holding a referendum proposing a massive change to our relationship with the EU that he was not in favour of and made no preparation to implement.
If you hold a referendum to confirm a change you are in favour of - like say an Assembly for North-East England - then neither result creates a constitutional crisis. If you win, you implement the change you want to implement. If you lose then you don't do anything. Simple.
It was bonkers to create a situation where a referendum brought down the government.
Well Cameron never for a moment believed LEAVE would win. If he'd thought there was the slightest chance of LEAVE winning he'd never have held the referendum,
Fake news.
Read his autobiography, read the contemporary interviews at the time.
One of Cameron's fears was if a party won a majority on circa 35% of the vote with a manifesto pledge to Leave the EU, at least with a referendum you have to get a majority of votes not a plurality.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
The one that was an eye opener was I think the 1970 election repeat when Robin Day pretty much letched over Janet Fookes, he did have a thing for women with red hair.
Christ I cringed so hard my feet shrank three sizes.
On topic. Should help Labour a darn sight more than conservatives. There’s a lot of Labour MPs will be out there swaggering about in their finest remainery that’s elections old. To listen to PB Tories all the Labour candidates will be out there wearing swastikas and giving it the ‘Roman salute’ 😆
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
There's two lots of absolute fuckwittery out there:
1. The belief of LibDems that 52% of the population will shrug their shoulders and say "never mind" if Brexit is cancelled.
2. The belief that 48% of people will be overjoyed if we lurch into No Deal with zero planning.
I think this will be a case of winner's curse. If we lurch into No Deal, then I see the LDs following the SNP's example. And if we revoke, the LDs will be wiped out, and the Brexit Party will end up in power.
The Heidi Allens of this world would be wise to try and ram through a soft Brexit, because nothing else ends well for them. (And I'm not even sure a soft Brexit looks so good for them...)
France demanding a general election or EUref2 as the price of agreeing an extension apparently
Well an election is nailed on so it’s hardly controversial.
I cannot think of a legal mechanism whereby a GE can be guaranteed in return for an extension. Possibly a vonc between 21st and 31st October which could conceivably lead to a GE, but it means the EU would be interfering spectacularly in UK internal politics.
Parliament has to approve the terms, according to the Benn act.
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
The one that was an eye opener was I think the 1970 election repeat when Robin Day pretty much letched over Janet Foulkes, he did have a thing for women with red hair.
Christ I cringed so hard my feet shrank three sizes.
Not a problem in 1959. What a difference the 60s made.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
There's two lots of absolute fuckwittery out there:
1. The belief of LibDems that 52% of the population will shrug their shoulders and say "never mind" if Brexit is cancelled.
2. The belief that 48% of people will be overjoyed if we lurch into No Deal with zero planning.
I think this will be a case of winner's curse. If we lurch into No Deal, then I see the LDs following the SNP's example. And if we revoke, the LDs will be wiped out, and the Brexit Party will end up in power.
The Heidi Allens of this world would be wise to try and ram through a soft Brexit, because nothing else ends well for them. (And I'm not even sure a soft Brexit looks so good for them...)
If they were wise, they would have done so a long time ago
I think the Tory vote will be close to 12k in CE&D. The Labour vote in 2017 was already 12k, but I assume that will fall a bit.
That assumes an actual rise in the Tory support, so would have to involve some switching from Plaid. Even allowing for some Plaid supporters being pretty right wing, that strikes me as a bold assumption.
I agree it will be a tight marginal, very possibly a three way marginal, but I expect Plaid to hold.
I am assuming most Plaid Cymru Leavers won't vote (I think a fair assumption).
What will Labour leavers do? Modest switching to the Tories would be enough to see the Tories through.
Nonetheless, my point is that this pact seems to offer nothing for Plaid Cymru.
I can see no seat that PC are MORE likely to take because of it.
However, I can see seats where PC will lose vote share.
One thing I am totally confident Labour Leavers will not do in Wales is switch to the Tories. Surprisingly, the beneficiaries of disillusionment with Labour among leave voters seem to be the Liberal Democrats. That incidentally is the real lesson to take from Brecon and Radnor and particularly the voting patterns in Ystradgynlais.
We have been told over and over that Labour voters are not vitally interested in the EU. I wonder if we're all missing a very obvious lesson from that - if Labour leave voters get disillusioned with Labour, it's the left wing they're going to turn to regardless of the official party line on Brexit.
Edit - yes, I fully agree with your main point and have said it myself before. The only realistic Plaid target is Ynys Mon and that's (a) Leave and (b) hasn't voted Liberal in many decades.
Ynys Mon Voted 50.9% Leave, lower than the UK average and not by a wide enough margin to characterise the seat as having a Leave identity.
I think that being part of a Remain-Alliance could help Plaid win votes from Labour Remainers. Combined with the general fall in Labour support it gives Plaid a good chance of taking the seat.
I think the reason why this argument fails is that Labour Remainers in Ynys Mon have a Labour Remainer MP in Albert Owen
Now admittedly Albert Owen is standing down, but unless his successor is very different in views, I don't see any real reason why a Labour Remainer should switch to Plaid Cymru.
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
The inexorable march of socialism, comrade. Lib-NDP coalition or C&S deal. Hopefully establishing a republic is the NDP's price for supporting the man with boot polish on his face.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
From the count in Market Drayton, a comparatively young Jeremy Corbyn nods agreement.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Not sure why you feel like that. If the Lib Dem’s win a majority they will be in government until 2025. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for them not to want to get bogged down in years of Brexit having been out of power for 100 years. So they revoke on day one and if others want to have a different policy they put it in their 2025 manifesto and try and win that general election (by which time we would have PR presumably). The reality is that a majority Lib Dem government is probably unlikely but as a policy it seems reasonable.
The irony is that the only reason people seem to think the policy is undemocratic is because they think our FPTP system undemocratic. Well to be fair the Lib Dem’s have been saying that for years. Funny how others have only just worked it out.
The inexorable march of socialism, comrade. Lib-NDP coalition or C&S deal. Hopefully establishing a republic is the NDP's price for supporting the man with boot polish on his face.
I need sleep...
At most it will be confidence and supply for Trudeau from the NDP even if he loses his majority.
I would also point out both the Conservatives and Liberals are Monarchist parties and combined have 62% of the Canadian vote
The last extension we were asked to use it wisely. We didn't.
Seems reasonable then that for the next extension there'll be a greater focus on "what is this extension actually going to change".
Except that by giving us another one after we didn't use it wisely, there is hardly much teeth to any words they have about us having to actually do something this time.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
Did you know Alphabet Soup was used to execute King Waldemar? Bnrdz was Legendary “unpronounceable City” founded and named as the seat of the short lived First Empire of King Waldemar (1472-73) also known as Waldemar the unfathomable since the self made monarch could neither read or write yet terrified his court by penning his own edicts no one could decipher. Born with a hare lip, cleft palate and a bad stutter, Waldemar had no better success giving verbal orders, hence the Empire foundered in a morass of semantic confusion unable to understand its leaders instructions. At last, students in the university of Bnrdz rose up and sacked the city, Waldemar was put to death by being force fed alphabet soup, as the empire died with him the name Bnrdz was changed to Zpklwdskrpdtmz.
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Hugh Gaitskill says he accepts the will of the people (which makes a change) but dismisses Lord Hailshsm's argument the Labour defeat 'means the extinction of Socialism'.
Harold Macmillan says 'One feels great confidence from the support of the people.'
I also don't see what the point of it would be - they already know the view of the government on this point, lack of a second letter or other communication won't mean the view will be mistaken.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Is it stupid? It’s what they want, so why not?
Had Remain actually legitimately won, rather than us remaining because politicians won’t let us leave despite leave winning, it surely would have been acceptable for UKIP to have a policy of leaving if they won a majority.
UKIP having a policy of leaving if they won a Parliamentary majority makes a lot more sense than Cameron holding a referendum proposing a massive change to our relationship with the EU that he was not in favour of and made no preparation to implement.
If you hold a referendum to confirm a change you are in favour of - like say an Assembly for North-East England - then neither result creates a constitutional crisis. If you win, you implement the change you want to implement. If you lose then you don't do anything. Simple.
It was bonkers to create a situation where a referendum brought down the government.
Well Cameron never for a moment believed LEAVE would win. If he'd thought there was the slightest chance of LEAVE winning he'd never have held the referendum,
Fake news.
Read his autobiography, read the contemporary interviews at the time.
One of Cameron's fears was if a party won a majority on circa 35% of the vote with a manifesto pledge to Leave the EU, at least with a referendum you have to get a majority of votes not a plurality.
This is where the Lords would play a role in delaying such a Brexit if they felt that it had only minority support. Thus a government elected on a manifesto commitment to Leave might decide that a referendum would make the process easier.
France demanding a general election or EUref2 as the price of agreeing an extension apparently
Well an election is nailed on so it’s hardly controversial.
I cannot think of a legal mechanism whereby a GE can be guaranteed in return for an extension. Possibly a vonc between 21st and 31st October which could conceivably lead to a GE, but it means the EU would be interfering spectacularly in UK internal politics.
Parliament has to approve the terms, according to the Benn act.
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
I don't think that's right. If the EU propose an extension date other than 31 January 2020, the PM has to accept it unless...
"...the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”"
Thus the motion to be set before the HoC is prescribed. My reading is that, for any alternative EU extension, if the motion is not presented for any reason the HoC will not have 'decided not to pass this motion' so the PM has to accept the proposed date, but I may be wrong on this last point.
Is there any chance of a shock in this Canadian general election? Or are they all dull centrists?
I doubt it, likely a hung parliament, the Liberals are dull centrists, the NDP basically Ed Miliband Labour, the Conservatives are Thatcherite, the Bloc Quebecois basically the Canadian SNP
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Is it stupid? It’s what they want, so why not?
Had Remain actually legitimately won, rather than us remaining because politicians won’t let us leave despite leave winning, it surely would have been acceptable for UKIP to have a policy of leaving if they won a majority.
UKIP having a policy of leaving if they won a Parliamentary majority makes a lot more sense than Cameron holding a referendum proposing a massive change to our relationship with the EU that he was not in favour of and made no preparation to implement.
If you hold a referendum to confirm a change you are in favour of - like say an Assembly for North-East England - then neither result creates a constitutional crisis. If you win, you implement the change you want to implement. If you lose then you don't do anything. Simple.
It was bonkers to create a situation where a referendum brought down the government.
Well Cameron never for a moment believed LEAVE would win. If he'd thought there was the slightest chance of LEAVE winning he'd never have held the referendum,
Fake news.
Read his autobiography, read the contemporary interviews at the time.
One of Cameron's fears was if a party won a majority on circa 35% of the vote with a manifesto pledge to Leave the EU, at least with a referendum you have to get a majority of votes not a plurality.
This is where the Lords would play a role in delaying such a Brexit if they felt that it had only minority support. Thus a government elected on a manifesto commitment to Leave might decide that a referendum would make the process easier.
But the Salisbury-Addison convention would kick in so the Lords could only delay it for a maximum of a year or two.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Not sure why you feel like that. If the Lib Dem’s win a majority they will be in government until 2025. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for them not to want to get bogged down in years of Brexit having been out of power for 100 years. So they revoke on day one and if others want to have a different policy they put it in their 2025 manifesto and try and win that general election (by which time we would have PR presumably). The reality is that a majority Lib Dem government is probably unlikely but as a policy it seems reasonable.
" ... out of power for 100 years"
Has Nick Clegg been written so swiftly out of history?
I can see why the LibDems might want to forget about him, now they have a new liar on the block ... A woman who has urged Scots to vote Tory to halt the SNP, and who has said that in the event of a second referendum giving another Leave vote she would refuse to accept it.
"... out of power for 100 years"
The LibDems have also been in power in Scotland and are currently in Government in Wales,
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
Did you know Alphabet Soup was used to execute King Waldemar? Bnrdz was Legendary “unpronounceable City” founded and named as the seat of the short lived First Empire of King Waldemar (1472-73) also known as Waldemar the unfathomable since the self made monarch could neither read or write yet terrified his court by penning his own edicts no one could decipher. Born with a hare lip, cleft palate and a bad stutter, Waldemar had no better success giving verbal orders, hence the Empire foundered in a morass of semantic confusion unable to understand its leaders instructions. At last, students in the university of Bnrdz rose up and sacked the city, Waldemar was put to death by being force fed alphabet soup, as the empire died with him the name Bnrdz was changed to Zpklwdskrpdtmz.
Thank you for this information! It's quite possible a similar situation has arisen in Ireland more than once. But in my native Wales we are blessed with phonetic orthography and two extra vowels so the fate is unlikely to befall any of our future leaders.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Is it stupid? It’s what they want, so why not?
Had Remain actually legitimately won, rather than us remaining because politicians won’t let us leave despite leave winning, it surely would have been acceptable for UKIP to have a policy of leaving if they won a majority.
UKIP having a policy of leaving if they won a Parliamentary majority makes a lot more sense than Cameron holding a referendum proposing a massive change to our relationship with the EU that he was not in favour of and made no preparation to implement.
If you hold a referendum to confirm a change you are in favour of - like say an Assembly for North-East England - then neither result creates a constitutional crisis. If you win, you implement the change you want to implement. If you lose then you don't do anything. Simple.
It was bonkers to create a situation where a referendum brought down the government.
Well Cameron never for a moment believed LEAVE would win. If he'd thought there was the slightest chance of LEAVE winning he'd never have held the referendum,
Fake news.
Read his autobiography, read the contemporary interviews at the time.
One of Cameron's fears was if a party won a majority on circa 35% of the vote with a manifesto pledge to Leave the EU, at least with a referendum you have to get a majority of votes not a plurality.
This is where the Lords would play a role in delaying such a Brexit if they felt that it had only minority support. Thus a government elected on a manifesto commitment to Leave might decide that a referendum would make the process easier.
But the Salisbury-Addison convention would kick in so the Lords could only delay it for a maximum of a year or two.
One session of parliament. Instant prorogue and Brexit if the Lords are being stupid. Then close down the other place
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Not sure why you feel like that. If the Lib Dem’s win a majority they will be in government until 2025. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for them not to want to get bogged down in years of Brexit having been out of power for 100 years. So they revoke on day one and if others want to have a different policy they put it in their 2025 manifesto and try and win that general election (by which time we would have PR presumably). The reality is that a majority Lib Dem government is probably unlikely but as a policy it seems reasonable.
" ... out of power for 100 years"
Has Nick Clegg been written so swiftly out of history?
I can see why the LibDems might want to forget about him, now they a new liar on the block ... A woman who has urged Scots to vote Tory to halt the SNP, and who has said that in the event of a second referendum giving another Leave vote she would refuse to accept it.
"... out of power for 100 years"
The LibDems have also been in power in Scotland and are currently in Government in Wales,
That should be 'LibDem' (sing) is currently in government in Wales.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
No spoilers please.
My money would be on SuperMac increasing the Tory majority.
I love watching people smoke on-screen. It makes me feel young again.
The one that was an eye opener was I think the 1970 election repeat when Robin Day pretty much letched over Janet Fookes, he did have a thing for women with red hair.
Christ I cringed so hard my feet shrank three sizes.
Everyone will be slipping their shoes off, this is just jaw dropping.
“Outside, in the Bentley, ten minutes. And bring your friend”
France demanding a general election or EUref2 as the price of agreeing an extension apparently
Well an election is nailed on so it’s hardly controversial.
I cannot think of a legal mechanism whereby a GE can be guaranteed in return for an extension. Possibly a vonc between 21st and 31st October which could conceivably lead to a GE, but it means the EU would be interfering spectacularly in UK internal politics.
Parliament has to approve the terms, according to the Benn act.
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
I don't think that's right. If the EU propose an extension date other than 31 January 2020, the PM has to accept it unless...
"...the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”"
Thus the motion to be set before the HoC is prescribed. My reading is that, for any alternative EU extension, if the motion is not presented for any reason the HoC will not have 'decided not to pass this motion' so the PM has to accept the proposed date, but I may be wrong on this last point.
The government presumably refuse to allow a minister to move the motion? How can they force it without a VONC and forcing him out?
How likely is it today that a crowd would burst into 'For he's a jolly good fellow' following a declaration? I noticed that happened at both Billericay and Exeter in 1959.
Is there any chance of a shock in this Canadian general election? Or are they all dull centrists?
I doubt it, likely a hung parliament, the Liberals are dull centrists, the NDP basically Ed Miliband Labour, the Conservatives are Thatcherite, the Bloc Quebecois basically the Canadian SNP
So I suppose the biggest "shock" here would be a Conservative majority?
They are "seeking to obtain" an extension as Parliament wishes.
But Boris is then perfectly entitled to send another letter saying he doesn't want or agree with it if he wishes
We're getting to the point where Benn must be infringing Boris's human rights!
The Benn Act constrains the actions of government ministers. If Boris does not wish to be constrained by it he is free to resign his post and speak freely from the backbenches and his (doubtless rapidly reinstated) Telegraph column.
How likely is it today that a crowd would burst into 'For he's a jolly good fellow' following a declaration? I noticed that happened at both Billericay and Exeter in 1959.
Considerably less likely than in 1959 given a much higher proportion are not 'fellows.'
France demanding a general election or EUref2 as the price of agreeing an extension apparently
Well an election is nailed on so it’s hardly controversial.
I cannot think of a legal mechanism whereby a GE can be guaranteed in return for an extension. Possibly a vonc between 21st and 31st October which could conceivably lead to a GE, but it means the EU would be interfering spectacularly in UK internal politics.
Parliament has to approve the terms, according to the Benn act.
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
I don't think that's right. If the EU propose an extension date other than 31 January 2020, the PM has to accept it unless...
"...the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”"
Thus the motion to be set before the HoC is prescribed. My reading is that, for any alternative EU extension, if the motion is not presented for any reason the HoC will not have 'decided not to pass this motion' so the PM has to accept the proposed date, but I may be wrong on this last point.
The government presumably refuse to allow a minister to move the motion? How can they force it without a VONC and forcing him out?
I think if the minister doesn't move the motion, the HoC cannot 'decide not to pass' it, thus the extension has to be accepted.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Not sure why you feel like that. If the Lib Dem’s win a majority they will be in government until 2025. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable for them not to want to get bogged down in years of Brexit having been out of power for 100 years. So they revoke on day one and if others want to have a different policy they put it in their 2025 manifesto and try and win that general election (by which time we would have PR presumably). The reality is that a majority Lib Dem government is probably unlikely but as a policy it seems reasonable.
" ... out of power for 100 years"
Has Nick Clegg been written so swiftly out of history?
I can see why the LibDems might want to forget about him, now they have a new liar on the block ... A woman who has urged Scots to vote Tory to halt the SNP, and who has said that in the event of a second referendum giving another Leave vote she would refuse to accept it.
"... out of power for 100 years"
The LibDems have also been in power in Scotland and are currently in Government in Wales,
“Has Nick Clegg been written so swiftly out of history?” Who? Ah yes. If only had stayed out of power for another hundred years
France demanding a general election or EUref2 as the price of agreeing an extension apparently
Well an election is nailed on so it’s hardly controversial.
I cannot think of a legal mechanism whereby a GE can be guaranteed in return for an extension. Possibly a vonc between 21st and 31st October which could conceivably lead to a GE, but it means the EU would be interfering spectacularly in UK internal politics.
Parliament has to approve the terms, according to the Benn act.
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
I don't think that's right. If the EU propose an extension date other than 31 January 2020, the PM has to accept it unless...
"...the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”"
Thus the motion to be set before the HoC is prescribed. My reading is that, for any alternative EU extension, if the motion is not presented for any reason the HoC will not have 'decided not to pass this motion' so the PM has to accept the proposed date, but I may be wrong on this last point.
The government presumably refuse to allow a minister to move the motion? How can they force it without a VONC and forcing him out?
I think if the minister doesn't move the motion, the HoC cannot 'decide not to pass' it, thus the extension has to be accepted.
The second letter could say "Remember I'm seeking an extension to, as required by s1(4) of the SurrBennder (geddit) Act, debate the original May-Barnier deal and changes to the political agreement. Take note that I'll whip against, and the opposition are against, so it won't go through for the fourth time and we're wasting your time again, and we'd be back here again ina few months. But I seek, as requested by law, the extension nonetheless. Your move."
How likely is it today that a crowd would burst into 'For he's a jolly good fellow' following a declaration? I noticed that happened at both Billericay and Exeter in 1959.
Considerably less likely than in 1959 given a much higher proportion are not 'fellows.'
Indeed - but I don't think I have seen it anywhere in the last 50 years!Sounded rather quaint really - and I am a bit surprised it happened even in 1959.
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Not to be all Trump like, but did he not speak out against Trump prior to 2016 then lick his boots afterwards? How long will his attitude last come election time?
Yes, that would create a difficulty. This is true of a lot of Labour held seats that might otherwise be attractive targets for the Remain Alliance, such as Bristol West, Norwich South, Cambridge, Leeds North-West, etc.
Surely the most difficult question is what to do in Leave seats with Remain MPs, who really would be at risk in a Brexit dominated election. Caroline Flint springs to mind (if she stands again) or Mary Creagh.
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
The thread header talks about a deal in 70 seats. Across the UK there are 63 seats which voted Remain by >65% and a further 99 seats which voted Remain by >55%. Some of these 162 seats will be in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or already held by the Lib Dems, Plaid or Greens, but I would guess that the remainder will account for the 70 seats to be targeted by the Remain Alliance.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
The 1959 election is being broadcast live on BBC4 if anyone's interested.
Live?
Have we travelled back in time? Can we rerun 2016 without the referendum?
I think it is very encouraging that we have developed time travel and are only using for responsible purposes, to enjoy historical moments like observing British General Elections.
Is there any chance of a shock in this Canadian general election? Or are they all dull centrists?
I doubt it, likely a hung parliament, the Liberals are dull centrists, the NDP basically Ed Miliband Labour, the Conservatives are Thatcherite, the Bloc Quebecois basically the Canadian SNP
So I suppose the biggest "shock" here would be a Conservative majority?
The second letter could say "Remember I'm seeking an extension to, as required by s1(4) of the SurrBennder (geddit) Act, debate the original May-Barnier deal and changes to the political agreement. Take note that I'll whip against, and the opposition are against, so it won't go through for the fourth time and we're wasting your time again, and we'd be back here again ina few months. But I seek, as requested by law, the extension nonetheless. Your move."
Why does he need a second letter to do that? They can read the newspapers and watch the news, they know all that.
Do Lib Dems and their friends honestly think they can just Revoke, and all will be well?
Brexit has been a litany of stupidity, but that is probably the stupidest thing yet. And the most rapturously, myopically, thunderfuckingly irresponsible.
Is it stupid? It’s what they want, so why not?
Had Remain actually legitimately won, rather than us remaining because politicians won’t let us leave despite leave winning, it surely would have been acceptable for UKIP to have a policy of leaving if they won a majority.
UKIP having a policy of leaving if they won a Parliamentary majority makes a lot more sense than Cameron holding a referendum proposing a massive change to our relationship with the EU that he was not in favour of and made no preparation to implement.
If you hold a referendum to confirm a change you are in favour of - like say an Assembly for North-East England - then neither result creates a constitutional crisis. If you win, you implement the change you want to implement. If you lose then you don't do anything. Simple.
It was bonkers to create a situation where a referendum brought down the government.
Well Cameron never for a moment believed LEAVE would win. If he'd thought there was the slightest chance of LEAVE winning he'd never have held the referendum,
Fake news.
Read his autobiography, read the contemporary interviews at the time.
One of Cameron's fears was if a party won a majority on circa 35% of the vote with a manifesto pledge to Leave the EU, at least with a referendum you have to get a majority of votes not a plurality.
This is where the Lords would play a role in delaying such a Brexit if they felt that it had only minority support. Thus a government elected on a manifesto commitment to Leave might decide that a referendum would make the process easier.
But the Salisbury-Addison convention would kick in so the Lords could only delay it for a maximum of a year or two.
Yes. That would give time for public opinion to either mobilise decisively against Brexit - as per the poll tax, say - or to demonstrate the lack of such strongly-held opposition and acquiesce to a more determined minority.
The second letter could say "Remember I'm seeking an extension to, as required by s1(4) of the SurrBennder (geddit) Act, debate the original May-Barnier deal and changes to the political agreement. Take note that I'll whip against, and the opposition are against, so it won't go through for the fourth time and we're wasting your time again, and we'd be back here again ina few months. But I seek, as requested by law, the extension nonetheless. Your move."
Why does he need a second letter to do that? They can read the newspapers and watch the news, they know all that.
Well, just imagine how long he'll take to say it compared to writing it.
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Not to be all Trump like, but did he not speak out against Trump prior to 2016 then lick his boots afterwards? How long will his attitude last come election time?
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Starting to serious reappraise Romney. He is standing up for proper American values and sentiments. At least some are in the GOP.
Mitt Romney was the one in 2012 who correctly identified Russia as the most serious strategic threat to the United States. He was laughed at at the time, because most people thought he was harking back to a very out of date view of the world, but in fact he was noticing the change in tone from Putin, from being a bit of a pussycat to adopting a quite nasty attitude towards the west. It was around the time that Putin was seriously embracing fascism.
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
Worse than that . He’s basically saying he doesn’t give a fig if they come back to Europe and cause carnage .
The Kurds have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and the thanks they get is to be stabbed in the back and now the nutjob Erdogan is going to run riot .
Worse than that . He’s basically saying he doesn’t give a fig if they come back to Europe and cause carnage .
The Kurds have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and the thanks they get is to be stabbed in the back and now the nutjob Erdogan is going to run riot .
Just watching a recording of the 'Tory Party at War'. Very funny particularly Alan Duncan. Speaks his mind! like 'Priti Patel the most useless and incompetent minister we've ever had'. Most of his predictions were right though Including that Patel would be in a Johnson Cabinet. What a bunch of shits the ERG were. How anyone voted for Johnson is just baffling. Surprisingly Farage is more likable than I'd imagined but in that company it's not too difficult
Worse than that . He’s basically saying he doesn’t give a fig if they come back to Europe and cause carnage .
The Kurds have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and the thanks they get is to be stabbed in the back and now the nutjob Erdogan is going to run riot .
Utterly despicable actions from Trump .
HYUFD would still vote for him.
HYUFD would vote for the antichrist if he wore a long red tie.
Comments
That said all those comments about Mark Reckless were my own words, and I toned that down for PB, in person, and particularly at the Tory conference in 2014 the adjectives I used to describe Mark Reckless made me sound like a Squaddie with Tourette's syndrome.
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ndp-bloc-get-post-debate-boost-but-liberals-conservatives-still-tied-poll
REMAIN 48%
"A new day has dawned, has it not!"
Christ I cringed so hard my feet shrank three sizes.
1. The belief of LibDems that 52% of the population will shrug their shoulders and say "never mind" if Brexit is cancelled.
2. The belief that 48% of people will be overjoyed if we lurch into No Deal with zero planning.
I think this will be a case of winner's curse. If we lurch into No Deal, then I see the LDs following the SNP's example. And if we revoke, the LDs will be wiped out, and the Brexit Party will end up in power.
The Heidi Allens of this world would be wise to try and ram through a soft Brexit, because nothing else ends well for them. (And I'm not even sure a soft Brexit looks so good for them...)
Johnson could work this so that the opposition have to vote on his motion for an election needing more than 60%, thus swerving the VONC, 14 DAYS and GONU.
I need sleep...
The irony is that the only reason people seem to think the policy is undemocratic is because they think our FPTP system undemocratic. Well to be fair the Lib Dem’s have been saying that for years. Funny how others have only just worked it out.
I would also point out both the Conservatives and Liberals are Monarchist parties and combined have 62% of the Canadian vote
https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1181190806469779457?s=20
But Boris is then perfectly entitled to send another letter saying he doesn't want or agree with it if he wishes
We're getting to the point where Benn must be infringing Boris's human rights!
Do they cut a deal with them even though Labour is not a Remainer party? Can they even do so?
All the EU has to do is offer the extension and ignore any other letters from Boris.
What he chooses to do with the extension is up to him.
"...the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
“That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.”"
Thus the motion to be set before the HoC is prescribed. My reading is that, for any alternative EU extension, if the motion is not presented for any reason the HoC will not have 'decided not to pass this motion' so the PM has to accept the proposed date, but I may be wrong on this last point.
Has Nick Clegg been written so swiftly out of history?
I can see why the LibDems might want to forget about him, now they have a new liar on the block ... A woman who has urged Scots to vote Tory to halt the SNP, and who has said that in the event of a second referendum giving another Leave vote she would refuse to accept it.
"... out of power for 100 years"
The LibDems have also been in power in Scotland and are currently in Government in Wales,
“Outside, in the Bentley, ten minutes. And bring your friend”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xhHB0dOVOYs
Who? Ah yes. If only had stayed out of power for another hundred years
Have we travelled back in time? Can we rerun 2016 without the referendum?
https://twitter.com/sppeoples/status/1182024931615358976?s=21
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1181937892194705415
Everything else flows naturally from that.
So the other seats we can presume will essentially have [several] paper candidates [each] from the Remain Alliance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/biden-speech-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Within four years, Putin had launched a hybrid war against Ukraine, attacked the democratic processes in USA and the UK, including hacking voting machines in all 50 US states in 2016, engaged in a terrifying campaign of civilian bombardment in Syria aimed at driving more refugees across the Mediterranean, and creating an RT- and Twitter-based propaganda machine designed to boost fascist parties in Europe, spread hatred of Muslims, destroy people's faith in democracy, destroy people's faith in media organisations, and destroy the concept of objective truth itself.
As much as I despise the Republican party for its virulently anti-progress standpoint, Romney deserves praise for being ahead of the curve on spotting where Putin was going. Obama, whom I like, was caught with his pants down over Russia. Inexcusable failure on his part.
The Kurds have been instrumental in defeating ISIS and the thanks they get is to be stabbed in the back and now the nutjob Erdogan is going to run riot .
Utterly despicable actions from Trump .